Format

Send to

Choose Destination
ANZ J Surg. 2012 Mar;82(3):112-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2011.05964.x. Epub 2012 Jan 17.

Meta-analysis of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

Author information

1
Shanghai Jiaotong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, China.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Conventional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (CLF) is generally considered the surgical approach of choice for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic fundoplication (RALF) has recently been introduced into laparoscopic clinical practice with the aim of improving surgical performance by eliminating tremors and fatigue. A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was performed to compare RALF and CLF.

METHODS:

Medline, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge CPCI-S and The Cochrane Library were searched and the methodological quality of included trials was evaluated. Outcomes evaluated were intraoperative, dysphagia, flatulence, antisecretory medication, satisfaction with intervention, operation time, hospital stay and total cost. Results were pooled in meta-analyses as risk ratios and weighted mean differences (WMD).

RESULTS:

Of 221 patients in six RCTs, 111 were allocated to CLF and 110 to RALF. RALF prolonged total time necessary to carry out fundoplication (WMD 3.17 (95% confidence interval. 2.33-4.00) min; P < 0.00001, χ(2) P = 0.25, I(2) = 24%). Operation complication, antisecretory medication, satisfaction with intervention, the time needed for hiatal dissection, the time from incision to completion of sutures, the total operation time and total cost were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION:

Clinical outcomes from RALF were comparable to CLF approach, but RALF prolonged the operation time. Currently, CLF should be routinely used as costs are lower.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley
Loading ...
Support Center